No-one likes general adverts, and ours hadn't been updated for ages, so we're having a clear-out and a change round to make the new ones useful to you. These new adverts bring in a small amount to help pay for the board and keep it free for you to use, so please do use them whenever you can, Let our links help you find great books on glass or a new piece for your collection. Thank you for supporting the Board.

The lines can blur a bit - I was at Nigel's lecture at the Edinburgh Conference - the subject matter being;"Can Ysart Glass be considered to be early Studio Glass" - for exactly the sorts of reasons Christine's outined (she wasn't at that lecture - she was watching Dennis Mann engraving - it was a horrible choice to have to make between the tow - Nigel and I wanted to see Dennis at work too!)

I think the term Studio Glass should be used only for glass produced from the time the term was coined to describe it - the early-mid '60s.

Logged

Cheers, Sue (M)"The really smart people know enough to know that there's too much that they don't know for them to be arrogant about the little they do know." Prof. Ron Davis OMF

sorry... yes I agree about the use of Studio. I did put it in inverted commas. I just meant that it worked alongside my studio glass pieces and it wasn't a mass produced item if you see what I mean. But yes, using 'studio' as a term was probably confusing to do.I love this vase (it is so contemporary in the flesh but it definitely feels old) all the more so because I've never seen another, so I was rather relieved to have a response indicating that they'd not seen one either . It's one of the few pieces I have where I honestly don't care about who dunnit and am quite happy to keep it quietly on the shelf. Funny how certain pieces just have the 'it' factor , although of course, the 'it' factor is different for all of us I guess. I feel the same way about that huge green and red splashy piece. m

Logged

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com

It probably was mass produced in the sense that it was likely produced in the 100s or 1000s. The quantity of items a glassblower was expected to produce in a day was pretty high. These things are scarce because they were probably relatively cheap to buy and were thrown away when no longer needed or granny died. It's an item with a use; therefore, when that end use is no longer there, it's discarded. Now if Granny had kept it in her china cabinet for best, there would be more of them about. That's why it's not difficult to find the high-end stuff.

I'm not disparaging it in any way, but I think you have to be realistic about these things. It's special because it's still here. I have loads of things like that; things I have only seen one of.

As an example, when my in-laws cleared Granny's cottage many, many years ago they threw loads of all glass and china down the well because they had no use for it. This was a rural farmworker's cottage and house clearers weren't so available in the sticks. I doubt there was much of value, but I bet it was interesting stuff.

I have a fair few bits which simply have the "it" factor - and I don't care about not being able to find out about them - I just love them!

(but it is nice when you get something for it's "IT" factor - then find out later it's something really important!)

m - have you seen my Laisner vase? It's stunning and amazing and weird and has an unusual story - which I related here. Unfortunately, I did seem to be mostly "discussing" it all on my ownsome , (with a little help from my friends :smg:)

I love your Laisner vase! It's one that I picked out when I browsed your collection photos on the display thread - absolutely gorgeous.Christine, I do know what you mean, but to me quite a lot of work gone into the design and making of it. And actually as a stand alone piece, it has real beauty to my eye even if it may have been a workaday water carafe at some point in its life.m

Hi, thanks Cathy.The V&A have replied and there is no problem. Having had a short further discussion with them about this piece and also then the correct wording of the process, I think the description of the process of making the dots on the glass should read as follows:- The piece is blown in an optic (ribbed) mould. The resulting glass bubble would look a bit like a pumpkin. At this stage, an orange glass thread was wound around it like a spiral. This would only attach to the higher (more expanded) areas of the bubble ribs. It was then reheated and further expanded in the air (without a mound mould) causing the thread to break up into small sections which eventually became dots.'

Well, I will keep my eyes peeled for anything similar that comes up.Thanks all :sun:m

I would not be too quick to dismiss Graystan based on pontil as the technique would have limited the scope for more finishing and they did produce some odd fish. But who else may have used Wilkinson's technique that dated from 1905?

Frank.... I'm off to look up H Wilkinson from Amblecote now. With regards Gray Stan, I don't think it was classed as a potential non-runner on the basis of the pontil mark alone. So far on Gray Stan I think the no's have been:a) Nigel has mentioned that the pontil mark doesn't look right, I have only two pieces of Gray Stan and they both have immaculately snapped off pontil marks where a vertical line can be seen, this decanter has a very neat snapped of circle.

b) I have a clear footed Gray Stan vase here with amber trails that appears in the same catalogue advertisement as what appear to be two pieces from their Flint Dot Enamel range. I was therefore thinking there might be more similarities between the pieces given they appear to have been produced at a similar time as they appear in the same advert. Apart from the pontil mark being different, the clear glass is different in that in the vase it has some tiny bubbles in but nowhere near the amount of minute bubbles that are in the clear of the decanter and the amber trails are a different colour in that they are yellowy amber and don't glow under blacklight whereas the decanter dots and neck colour is definitely orange and they look neon under blacklight. However both the orange on the decanter and the amber trails on the footed vase are full of tiny bubbles now I examine them both more minutely. (Source -Charles Hajdamach 20th Century British Glass book page 93 plate 178- my amber trailed vase is pictured 3rd from left top row, and stands next to what seems to be a Flint Dotted Enamel lidded pot 2nd from left top row and on the bottom of that plate bottom row 2nd from right is what appears to be a perfume bottle Flint Dotted Enamel).

c) I did raise the possibility of Gray Stan with the V& A and said it was thought to possibly be a non runner at this stage and the thoughts from the V&A was that Gray Stan usually worked with high lead-glass and that the decanter didn't appear to be this - sorry I really can't tell whether it is or isn't but I assume not because my footed vase and my candlestick ring like a bell whereas the decanter has a dull 'thud'. But maybe that is also a function of the shape of the piece? I don't know enough about glass to know that, however they just don't feel to be the same kind of glass though.

My thoughts are that despite all these no's, I still look at it and the work gone into it and feel it sits well enough to have been a piece of Gray Stan or similar. It feels too much work has gone into it for it to be a 'workaday' piece. But it doesn't feel as 'refined' as my two GS pieces somehow.

Lastly, I found a vase on a site that has a dotted enamel effect and that was attributed as possibly Orrefors or Stevens and Williams??? did both those companies deploy this dotted enamel technique? I've not been able to find any evidence to support this, but then I have so little resources bookwise, in this area.sorry for the lengthy reply.m

If I read this correctly ... on the Tudor Crystal history site (see link below), there was a Mr H Wilkinson who came over from Thomas Webbs and Sons in 1921(?) along with others, to form The Stourbridge Glass Co Ltd. So was this process patented by this Mr H Wilkinson of Thos Webbs and Sons in 1905? if so could my decanter have been made at Thos Webbs and Sons before 1921 (does the type of glass with the neon orange etc support it being made that early?) or perhaps later by The Stourbridge Glass Co Ltd if it was he who moved over? OTOH if my decanter is not lead crystal then perhaps it was not made at either of those places?the thot plickens...mhttp://www.tudorcrystal.com/history.asp

Logged

Support the Glass Message Board by finding glass through glass-seek.com